Bush tries to kill freedom of press

The Attn Gen. Gonzales with the marching orders from the White House is going to try and shut down any reemaining media opposition under the guise of
plugging security leaks. Didn't Nixxon try this?

www.capitolhillblue.com
Using many of the questionable surveillance and monitoring techniques that brought both questions and criticism to his administration, President
George W. Bush has launched a war against reporters who write stories unfavorable to his actions and is planning to prosecute journalists to make
examples of them in his "war on terrorism."

Bush recently directed Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to use "whatever means at your disposal" to wiretap, follow, harass and investigate
journalists who have published stories about the administration's illegal use of warrantless wiretaps, use of faulty intelligence and anything else he
deems "detrimental to the war on terror."

Reporters for The New York Times, which along with Capitol Hill Blue revealed use of the National Security Agency to monitor phone calls and emails of
Americans, say FBI agents have interviewed them and criminal prosecutors at the Justice Department admit they are laying "the groundwork for a grand
jury that could lead to criminal charges,"

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

The day is coming when each of us will have to take a stand as to what matters most to us...loyalty to party or loyalty to country and the ideals
that we have been raised with. I remember William Koestler saying once that "Whether it is evident today or not, the shadow of the swastika looms over
America." That day is here.

After accepting on behalf of himself and his director, the formally-dressed star explained: “I have invited my fellow documentarians on the stage
with us ... They’re here in solidarity with me because we like privacy. We like privacy and we live in times when the President of the United States
has his eyeball on the keyholes of our igloos. We live in a time when we are forced to document fictitious election results that elect a fictitious
president who spies on us for fictitious reasons. Whether it’s the fiction of herring shortages or the fiction of casually-dressed penguins, we are
against this war on our privacy, man or penguin. Shame on you, Mr. Bush, shame on you. And, in my case, any time you’ve got the head of the Maritime
Union and Danny DeVito against you, your time is up. Thank you very much.”

Mr. Packy’s last sentences were drowned out as the program’s producers cued the orchestra and he was essentially cut off. By this time there were
a number of audience members loudly booing, as well as some cheering. Backstage after the event Mr. Packy was asked about what set him off, and he
pointed to a recent report in Capital Hill Blue about reporters being investigated for writing unfavorable stories: "Using many of the
questionable surveillance and monitoring techniques that brought both questions and criticism to his administration, President George W. Bush has
launched a war against reporters who write stories unfavorable to his actions and is planning to prosecute journalists to make examples of them in his
'war on terrorism.'

No Marge they’ve just gotten smarter, haven't caught up yet? Read between all the lines of BS and you will see the truth. The truth is the Attorney
General is instructed to do what he can to investigate and prosecute anyone who releases classified information. As you surely know Marge
releasing classified information is a crime. Anyone who leaks that information can be persecuted, and reporters who refuse to give up
their sources can and should be punished.
Can you imagine the NY Times publishing in 1942 that the US had broken the Japanese military code?

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Can you imagine the NY Times publishing in 1942 that the US had broken the Japanese military code?

Most certainly she, as with a number of others within the Halls of ATS, can see "if" justification for the NYTimes publishing that the US had
broken Japanese military codes. In fact, I have no doubt that they would have been very pleased if the NYTimes had published the date and time for
D-Day....

Obviously, the retort will be that "These are not comparable examples," despite the significance of the examples having applicable
consequences.

Once again we come back to the issue of oversight. Just as there is no trustworthy source of oversight for illegal wiretaps, there is no trustworthy
source of oversight for establishing what should and should not be classified information. If we take your extreme and back it up to the other end --
how about we say the US government makes every negative thing about them in their past and present classified information. Then, it becomes a matter
of not speaking about the negative history or qualities of a government because that is classified information. Perhaps the justification is that
this negative history is dividing America and aiding the terrorists.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.